Nuclear Proliferation

It is commonly held that nuclear weapons are unduly dangerous and unnecessary, and U.S. policy is indeed an affirmation of this overly reasonable mentality. With the first war fought for nuclear proliferation near concluded in Iraq, (in so far as it was directed against nuclear arms) it is appropriate to reexamine the ideology that a general prevention of nuclear development is the best way to combat ambitiously malicious nations. North Korea and China, by far the most belligerent Asian countries, have managed to obtain or develop nuclear capabilities, and while Iran is apparently well in tow, Japan and Germany, the largest economies in Asia and Europe respectively, are tacitly chided from developing their own nuclear technologies. The problem is that U.N. and global sanctions, which come heavily with nuclear pursuits, only really affect internationally active and benevolent nations. The current method for deterring weapons development, a series of hefty embargos, makes it difficult for responsible—and often jeopardized—nations to acquire a nuclear deterrent. The situation, when reduced, shares its problems with gun control. While the good guys respect the prohibitions in a vain hope for peace and decency, the bad guys stockpile weapons.
Very few people are comfortable with the idea of nuclear promulgation, and with good reason. Nuclear combat is the most dangerous and destructive force man has thus far brought to bear. Still, because that force is here, and because it has already fallen into the wrong hands, it is very challenging to see why, from an objective standpoint, the U.S. and U.N. shouldn’t encourage nuclear programs with time-tested and responsible nations. It would be far better if no one had any at all, but with the current weapon stockpiles, there is enough atomic power to destroy the world many times over, and the global threat of any one country initiating doomsday has not really dissipated since the Cold War. A case example is the India-Pakistan situation, in which two countries with mutual enmity have peaceably existed for the last fifty years. Compare this to Israel’s military activity. Though it is not entirely certain whether or not Israel have atomic weapons, she has been involved in more direct conflicts on this side of the twentieth century than any other non-Western power.
It seems like the only way to really prevent aspiring antagonists from acquiring atomic weapons is to sustain prolonged military campaigns and a sort of semi-occupation, which is very costly for all nations involved. Furthermore there are already volatile and militaristic nations with nuclear weaponry, and at this point they can’t well be invaded. The only apparent way to check the abuses by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, is to allow our similarly located allies—Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Ethiopia, Germany—to defensively arm themselves in kind. It isn’t a pretty picture, but nothing else seems to be working and as much as it makes one cringe to say it, nuclear deterrents may indeed be the most effective method to prevent militaristic expansion and preserve human life. People have an inherent and rightly placed discomfort with nuclear expansion, and there isn’t a precise guarantee that American allies will stay agreeable when armed. The only real assurance is that belligerent countries are aggressively arming, and as it stands they see no reason not to.